{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_complete_proposal_portfolio20_20260803","cell_id":"computability_boundary_mapping__veterinary_medicine","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_id":"cbm-vet-laboratory-pipeline-equivalence-gate-003","proposal_index":3,"version":0,"title":"Evidence-Gated Equivalence Claims for Veterinary Laboratory Pipeline Migrations","problem":"A veterinary diagnostic laboratory is replacing a legacy specimen-classification and report-generation pipeline with a new implementation assembled from executable parsers, rules, and analysis plugins. The migration requirement asks an automated gate to decide, for every pair of arbitrary pipeline programs and every well-formed future specimen record, whether both programs terminate and produce identical reportable outputs. Passing regression cases, code review, and timeouts do not prove this universal program-equivalence claim. Conversely, declaring the task impossible from an analogy alone would be unsound unless the pipeline encoding, termination requirement, output relation, and reduction are stated and checked.","actors":["Veterinary clinical pathologist accountable for report interpretation","Laboratory director authorizing pipeline migrations","Laboratory software engineers maintaining old and new pipelines","Quality-assurance staff defining reportable equivalence","Independent formal-methods reviewer","Veterinarians receiving laboratory reports"],"observable_state":"A migration ticket describes the pipelines as equivalent after a finite regression suite passes; the accepted input contract includes extensible records or plugin-defined transformations; termination is not stated separately from output equality; a timeout can be logged as no difference; and the evidence does not identify which input fields, output fields, external resources, or numeric semantics were actually compared.","consequence":"A migration may be approved despite an untested input that changes or suppresses a reportable result, or it may be blocked indefinitely because a difficult but bounded comparison is rhetorically labeled undecidable. Either outcome obscures what was proved, what was merely tested, and which discrepancies still require laboratory judgment.","affected_objective":"Authorize laboratory software migrations using claims whose scope, termination assumptions, report-equivalence relation, evidence type, and unresolved residue remain explicit and auditable.","intervention":"Replace the universal equivalence decider with an evidence-gated migration protocol. First define the two pipeline encodings, well-formed input class, external-resource model, termination obligation, and projection of outputs that counts as reportably equivalent. Test the unrestricted total-decision requirement with a checked reduction, such as constructing one pipeline that returns a fixed report and another that simulates an arbitrary source computation before returning that report; a decider for total equivalence would then reveal whether the source computation halts. Do not extend that conclusion beyond the matched model. For each real migration, run two independent evidence tracks: theorem-prover-guided construction of a checkable equivalence-and-termination certificate, and counterexample search for a concrete well-formed record producing divergent outputs. A checked proof yields VERIFIED-EQUIVALENT-UNDER-CONTRACT; a replayable mismatch yields DIFFERENT; failure of both tracks yields UNRESOLVED, not equivalent. Where the laboratory declares a finite input envelope, bounded exhaustive comparison may yield EQUIVALENT-WITHIN-ENVELOPE. A fallback router permits automated migration only under the exact verified contract and otherwise preserves the legacy release path or requires laboratory-director adjudication. A versioned boundary record links every verdict to code hashes, semantics, evidence, bounds, assumptions, and recheck triggers.","structural_mapping":[{"archetype_element":"Problem-Class Specification","domain_realization":"Pairs two executable veterinary laboratory pipelines and asks whether both terminate and produce equivalent reportable outputs for every record admitted by a declared input contract."},{"archetype_element":"Instance Representation Contract","domain_realization":"Defines specimen-record syntax, missing-value behavior, numeric representation, plugin versions, external reference inputs, and the report fields included in the equivalence relation."},{"archetype_element":"Computation Model Contract","domain_realization":"States available memory, external calls, nondeterminism, file and network dependencies, termination semantics, and whether environmental responses are fixed inputs or undeclared oracles."},{"archetype_element":"Quantifier and Scope Map","domain_realization":"Separates universal equivalence over arbitrary programs and future records from equivalence proved under a formal contract or observed inside a finite envelope."},{"archetype_element":"Computability Impossibility Certificate","domain_realization":"A checked source-to-target construction addresses only the existence of a total decider for the unrestricted pipeline class; it does not decide any individual migration."},{"archetype_element":"Independent Proof Review","domain_realization":"A reviewer checks the reduction, each equivalence certificate, the formalized report relation, and every assumption independently of the pipeline authors."},{"archetype_element":"Unknown and Nontermination Policy","domain_realization":"Failed proof search, analysis timeout, unsupported plugin behavior, and uncovered inputs remain UNRESOLVED and are never converted into equivalent."},{"archetype_element":"Fallback Solution Contract","domain_realization":"Verified migrations may proceed only under their attached contract; bounded evidence remains bound-qualified, while unresolved cases retain the existing release path or require accountable adjudication."},{"archetype_element":"Computability Guarantee Record","domain_realization":"A supersedable record binds verdicts to pipeline versions, contracts, certificates, counterexamples, finite envelopes, external dependencies, and re-analysis triggers."}],"mechanism_mapping":[{"mechanism_slug":"halting_problem_reduction","role":"Tests the unrestricted equivalence-decider requirement by embedding a source computation into one pipeline's termination behavior while the comparison pipeline returns a fixed report.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a valid reduction, implementation difficulty or analyzer timeout could be presented as proof that universal equivalence checking is impossible."},{"mechanism_slug":"reduction_direction_checklist","role":"Checks that the known source maps into the target equivalence problem and that the construction is total, computable, answer-preserving, and scoped to the declared pipeline model.","counterfactual_removal":"Without this review, a reversed reduction or a mismatch between semantic equivalence and reportable equivalence could support a false boundary claim."},{"mechanism_slug":"theorem_prover_guided_search","role":"Searches for a machine-checkable certificate that both pipelines terminate and preserve the specified report relation under the formal input and environment contract, while retaining open obligations as residue.","counterfactual_removal":"Without certificate-producing proof search, a positive equivalence verdict would depend primarily on finite behavioral samples or reviewer confidence."},{"mechanism_slug":"proof_by_counterexample","role":"Refutes a universal equivalence claim with one replayable, well-formed specimen record whose checked executions produce different reportable outputs.","counterfactual_removal":"Without counterexamples as decisive negative evidence, observed divergences could be dismissed as test noise or buried inside aggregate similarity scores."},{"mechanism_slug":"proof_checking","role":"Independently verifies the unrestricted reduction and migration-specific proof certificates, including that the theorem proved matches the operational input and output contracts.","counterfactual_removal":"Without independent checking, a proof artifact could confer authority while containing an invalid inference or certifying the wrong formal statement."},{"mechanism_slug":"bounded_domain_exhaustive_search","role":"Compares both pipelines on every record in a precisely encoded finite envelope and returns only EQUIVALENT-WITHIN-ENVELOPE or a concrete mismatch.","counterfactual_removal":"Without this mode, genuinely finite migrations would lack a complete practical route, while ordinary regression tests might continue to masquerade as exhaustive evidence."},{"mechanism_slug":"fallback_mode_router","role":"Routes a migration according to its strongest valid evidence: checked universal certificate, replayable difference, finite-envelope result, or unresolved status.","counterfactual_removal":"Without governed routing, a bounded pass or proof-search timeout could be relabeled as unrestricted equivalence by downstream release tooling."},{"mechanism_slug":"computability_boundary_decision_record","role":"Records the selected boundary, exact shipped verdicts, linked evidence, unresolved obligations, code identities, and triggers requiring reclassification.","counterfactual_removal":"Without a version-linked record, plugin, schema, or external-reference changes could silently invalidate an earlier migration verdict."}],"causal_chain":["The laboratory's universal migration requirement combines termination and semantic output equality for arbitrary executable pipelines over an open-ended record class.","An explicit input, environment, and report-equivalence contract exposes the actual quantifiers and prevents finite regression behavior from standing in for the class-wide claim.","A checked reduction can rule out only the matched unrestricted total decider, redirecting work from an unsupported universal gate toward migration-specific evidence.","Proof search can establish a positive equivalence claim when it produces a certificate, while an unclosed proof obligation remains unresolved rather than becoming negative evidence.","Counterexample search can decisively refute equivalence with one legitimate divergent record, without implying that failure to find such a record proves equivalence.","Exhaustive comparison supplies a complete result when the laboratory can define and enumerate a finite operational envelope, but the verdict retains that boundary.","The router authorizes only the action supported by the strongest checked evidence and keeps UNRESOLVED distinct from verified, different, timeout, and bound-qualified equivalence.","The versioned record forces re-analysis when code, schemas, output semantics, dependencies, or the accepted input class change."],"baseline":"Engineers run both pipelines on a selected regression corpus, compare normalized reports, inspect differences, and approve the migration when no material mismatch is observed before the test budget expires. This baseline can reveal concrete discrepancies but cannot establish termination and report equivalence for every admitted future record.","nearest_rivals":["Differential regression testing: finds mismatches on selected records but cannot infer universal equivalence from a finite passing corpus.","Code review: can identify likely semantic changes but does not itself supply a uniform termination and equivalence proof for arbitrary executable components.","Canary dual-running: observes production discrepancies after limited deployment but does not provide a pre-release universal guarantee and may encounter a consequential divergence only after report generation.","Restricting both pipelines to a finite rule language: could restore a total equivalence procedure but would require redesigning the laboratory pipelines rather than evaluating migrations between existing arbitrary implementations.","Schema compatibility checking: verifies record shapes and field types but does not establish equality of computed report content or program termination.","Output hashing over archived records: efficiently detects differences on that archive but does not extend to unrepresented records, altered external resources, or future schema values."],"remaining_contrastive_claim":"This proposal classifies and governs evidence for equivalence between two executable laboratory pipelines. It does not claim that proof search will settle every migration, that passing a finite envelope establishes unrestricted equivalence, or that identical reports imply clinical correctness. Its operational contribution is a release gate whose verdict strength cannot exceed its checked certificate, replayable counterexample, or declared exhaustive bound.","authority_safety":{"decision_authority":"The laboratory director authorizes migrations; the veterinary clinical pathologist defines reportable equivalence; an independent reviewer accepts formal certificates; and treating veterinarians retain authority over interpretation and animal care.","authorized_first_step":"Apply the protocol offline to two toy pipeline pairs over a synthetic finite specimen schema: one equivalent pair with a short checkable proof and one pair containing a known divergent record. Separately formalize and review the unrestricted reduction and exercise every router state without releasing laboratory reports.","excluded_actions":["Replacing or releasing a production diagnostic pipeline during the first evidence step","Issuing, suppressing, or altering an animal's laboratory report based on experimental verdicts","Treating a regression-suite pass, timeout, or failed proof search as VERIFIED-EQUIVALENT","Extending EQUIVALENT-WITHIN-ENVELOPE beyond its attached finite record set and execution bounds","Accepting a proof without checking that its formal input and output semantics match laboratory operations","Allowing changed plugins, schemas, reference data, or code hashes to inherit an earlier verdict automatically"],"halt_rollback":"Stop the pilot and invalidate its migration verdicts if a checked counterexample is routed as equivalent, a certificate fails independent verification, a finite bound is omitted from its label, an unresolved result authorizes automated release, or replay under the recorded environment changes the outcome. Preserve the existing pipeline as the release path until corrected evidence is reviewed."},"negative_tests":{"strongest_counterevidence":"A checkable constructive algorithm that always terminates and correctly decides the declared termination-and-report-equivalence property for every pair in the full admitted pipeline class would defeat the proposed unrestricted boundary and shift the work to complexity and deployment engineering.","problem_falsifier":"The computability issue is absent if both pipelines are finite lookup systems over a finite effectively enumerable record domain, all environmental inputs are fixed, and every execution has a proved bound; exhaustive comparison would then decide equivalence in principle.","intervention_falsifier":"The intervention fails if the formal report relation omits operationally material output behavior, certificates cannot be checked independently, counterexamples cannot be replayed under a fixed environment, or release tooling treats UNRESOLVED as approval.","risks":["A formally verified relation may omit clinically meaningful presentation, provenance, or warning differences.","Proof search may consume substantial resources and still return unresolved.","Finite envelopes may exclude rare but valid record combinations and later be described without their bounds.","Counterexamples may depend on undeclared environment state and fail to reproduce.","Maintaining the legacy release path during unresolved migrations can itself carry operational costs or known defects.","A trusted proof checker may be correct while the pipeline semantics supplied to it are inaccurate.","Teams may interpret identical report outputs as evidence that both pipelines are clinically valid, which the equivalence result does not establish."]},"next_evidence_step":"Define a synthetic specimen schema with no more than four fields and a finite envelope of at most 256 records. Implement two small pipeline pairs: one structurally equivalent pair and one pair differing on exactly one record. Predeclare the report projection, termination contract, environment, and router rules. Exhaustively compare the finite envelope, replay any counterexample, attempt a checkable equivalence proof for the equivalent pair, and verify all artifacts with a second reviewer. Independently inspect the unrestricted reduction for source-to-target direction and answer preservation. The result may assess artifact integrity, routing, and finite-envelope completeness only; it cannot establish effects on laboratory quality, clinical decisions, or unrestricted real pipelines.","prior_art_status":"UNSEARCHED","diversity_from_prior_proposals":"Proposal 1 addresses safety and termination of individual programmable veterinary care policies. It intervenes before clinical deployment by enforcing a finite-state policy language, over-approximating patient transitions, and model-checking prohibited actions. Proposal 3 instead compares two existing veterinary laboratory data-processing programs during software migration, retains arbitrary implementations, and gates equivalence claims through checked proofs, counterexamples, and bound-qualified exhaustive comparisons. Proposal 2 addresses existential trace matching for open-ended animal-behavior simulators and uses fair enumeration plus an explicit-UNKNOWN one-sided witness protocol. Proposal 3 asks a universal relational question between two laboratory pipelines, pursues positive proof and negative counterexample evidence in parallel, and governs release according to certificate type. It neither fits behavioral models nor searches parameter executions. The three proposals therefore differ in decision object, institutional adopter, evidence asymmetry, intervention, operational output, and causal path; this laboratory migration gate is independently adoptable without either earlier system.","revision_record":{"parent_version":null,"progress_targets_addressed":[],"conceptual_changes":[],"operational_changes":[],"evidence_changes":[],"claim_changes":[]}}